Headly 123

Thanks for the comments.

Where is the evidence of the Stones buying their own music? Please share this this information if not false or incriminating.

Secondly, I never stated as a spokesperson for the Stones. If you were a member of the Stones, would you like someone else confiscating your efforts?

I dont think this argument of stealing your pay check works because the stones are doing just fine. I mean, more than just fine. the fact that were getting free music of their concerts does not seem to be affecting them financially. everyone has a right to make a living, and the stones are able to. So as long as thats the case I can in good concience listen to music without paying. If you wanna call that stealing, thats your call.

Ryan.

Thank you for the input.

Thee discussion, however, concerns the ethics of illegaly downloading music.

>> the fact that were getting free music of their concerts does not seem to be affecting them financially <<

hm - that's if you leave out the part where concert material they might want to turn into an official release
is proliferated all over the globe within hours of their playing it ... and then if they release it anyway
miles of people not only decline to buy it, but even gripe that "we have that already" -
as if the band were to blame for the fact that they've acquired bootlegs. it ain't pretty.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 19:48 by with sssoul.

Erik,

Come on, don't twist this. It's worse than rushing to an empty parking place.

Can't afford to buy everything! When you have all their official releases in 3 or 4 versions (LP,MC,CD,CD-remastered and so on...) I can't use more of my money. Mick and Keith have more than enough money, I don't....

[www.reverbnation.com]

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> the fact that were getting free music of their
> concerts does not seem to be affecting them
> financially <<
>
> hm - that's if you leave out the part where
> concert material they might want to turn into an
> official release
> is proliferated all over the globe within hours of
> their playing it ... and then if they release it
> anyway
> miles of people not only decline to buy it, but
> even gripe that "we have that already" -
> as if the band were to blame for the fact that
> they've acquired bootlegs. it ain't pretty.

Yes thats a good point. But also, I think the stones own DVD releases offer competition. Like Live Licks for example. I think a lot of people didn't want that because all that stuff was already on Four Flicks, which is a far superior product.

I recently read somewhere that bands like the Stereophonics (I think it was them anyway) are releasing their new album over the net for free, and relying on the downloaders to pay them whatever they feel it is worth.

I have no idea how successful that idea was, but it's an interesting concept.

Also, all new albums are available as pirate copies on the net for free when they're released, and often they are available BEFORE they are released. That gives you some idea of the levels of piracy out there already.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with sssoul Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > hm - that's if you leave out the part where
> > concert material they might want to turn into an
> > official release is proliferated all over the globe within hours of
> > their playing it ... and then if they release it anyway
> > miles of people not only decline to buy it, but
> > even gripe that "we have that already" -
> > as if the band were to blame for the fact that
> > they've acquired bootlegs. it ain't pretty.
>
> Yes thats a good point. But also, I think the
> stones own DVD releases offer competition. Like
> Live Licks for example. I think a lot of people
> didn't want that because all that stuff was
> already on Four Flicks, which is a far superior
> product.


But the artists can release just about anything they want to from their vaults, so why would they put one of the concerts that allready circulates in excellent quality ? Just about 1% of the RS concerts in available as soundboard recording. Why release one of that 1% batch-of-shows ? Concerts like Rio 06...it was broadcasted because they wanted people to enjoy it; so there's not much difference between getting a DVDR of it, or viewing it on the computer, as it was broadccasted.
And, surely, I will not say no thanks to a piece of RS footage that I want to see, just because "they might release it" in the future. Rolling Stones don't have a history of releasing stuff from their vaults....to say the least... and neither do they care about how I spend my private time. If they however came to visit me, they would probably be HAPPY that I choose to listen to THEM, instead of some other band - nevermind if it's a official album or an old audience recording



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 20:27 by Erik_Snow.

Aud-dun,

If anyone has more money than you, it doesn't matter. I have hope of wealth for you. Unfortunately, money is not the answer.

The swimming pool (community) is a good escape. i think the pool is a favorable answer. Take the radio/ casette player and listen to Emotional Rescue.....It is fun to yell out in the water "You will be mine all mine, all mine riding...also the Four Tops work as well...

It is 82 degreestoday so hit the pool and forget the NFL!!!

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
Just about 1% of the RS
> concerts in available as soundboard recording. Why
> release one of that 1% batch-of-shows ?


thats an interesting statistic Eric. Yeah I think a lot of people would be willing to buy better sounding version of a concert, or songs from a show that they already have if it has been mixed professionally and improved greatly. I know I sure would.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 20:35 by ryanpow.

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thats an interesting statistic Eric.

We might make it 3%. It's still a VERY low percentage of shows

Erik, i'm not trying to say my views on this should obligate anyone but me -
i do hope it's okay to say what my point of view is, though.

i'm not saying i think it's wrong to listen to the stuff before it's clear whether it'll be released or not -
i do that sometimes too - but for me the artists' right to release their own material is ... well, obvious!
when a show has been broadcast that means someone's made considerable investment in it,
and it seems normal to me for them to recoup costs by also selling it - whether i own it already or not.
(maybe that thinking is partly a generational thing: in my formative years - and the Stones' -
the fact that something was on tv definitely didn't mean that everyone who wanted it
had a great-quality copy of it a few hours/days later, or that it was "up for grabs", so to speak.)

and i don't feel artists are in any way obligated to unearth stuff from the vaults
that no one's figured out how to bootleg yet. sometimes i even wonder if they wouldn't offer more
if we weren't so busy helping ourselves. but as i say: this is just my thinking, not meant to "dictate" to anyone else.

ps: just for the record ... i do pretty often wait to find out what they plan to release
before i start collecting many bootlegs from a given tour. maybe that's strange - but it is one possible approach.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 21:34 by with sssoul.

According to the liner notes of Elvis Alternate Golden Hits Vol 3,Keith sought his own copy of the "Little Sister" sessions after hearing about it while on the No Security Tour. I wonder if he was worried about the Elvis estate?

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erik, i'm not trying to say my views on this
> should obligate anyone but me -
> i do hope it's okay to say what my point of view
> is, though.

Of course, with Sssoul, and I'm in the same shoes as you in such way;
as it's just my take on it.


> [...] but for me the artists'
> right to release their own material is ... well,
> obvious!
> and i don't feel artists are in any way obligated
> to unearth stuff from the vaults
> that no one's figured out how to bootleg yet.

Neither do I, with Sssoul, but I meant that it's their own choice whether to release a "well-known" SBD recording or a "rare" concert from their vaults.
If they choose to do the first mentioned; they ought to realise that some collectors might pass on this official release.
But just like you, I'll support a product like Buired Alive - it doesn't matter that Swingin Pig released it 15 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 21:13 by Erik_Snow.

OK.

Please, I do not want to be controversial. I have a question. If they released Flowers (one of my favorites) why wouldn't they released other gems instead of amassing money on tours. This bewilders me and found somewhat curious and yeah...I admit, disconcerting....Despite the inevitable, why not go for it. Is there an underlying reason?

>> If they released Flowers <<

... are you thinking of Metamorphosis, maybe? i don't see the connection with Flowers
(well, two tracks on Flowers had never been released before, but i still don't get the connection)

Ssoul,


Ride on Baby and Mother's Little Helper not sure...On Met ....I don't know why??? Not sure

i have no idea what you're talking about, sorry!
Ride On Baby and Sitting on a Fence were the two numbers on Flowers that had never been released before.
Metamorphosis was comprised entirely of previously-unreleased stuff. and it was an ABKCO release,
not something the Stones decided to put out.
anyway, i don't see (at all) what either of those has to do with the ethics of bootlegging.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 22:54 by with sssoul.

After reading some of these posts, I felt compelled to write. One of the reasons that the Ya Yas Project evolved was due to the fact that many, many Stones fans from all over the world have wished that the Stones organization would release some of the buried treasures (CDs of studio,live recordings/DVDs) from the vaults. The re-release of Ya Yas (in its entirety) was at the top of the list for many due to the popularity and potential market-ability of this record. We also felt that a petition of this sort would be a good first step towards persuading the Stones organization that there is indeed a market for releasing archival recordings just as other artists have been doing....

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-09-24 16:42 by parislocksmith.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regardless of Brussells or whatever stolen concert
> or out-takes it is simply wrong. What if someone
> took your paycheck? It is not like the Stones just
> had given music. They worked just as hard as
> anyone else. Remember? they were broke for ions! I
> pay for my music via Amazon or any other outlet.
>
>


Tell that to Ronnie Wood. It was one of his kids who leaked the Voodoo Lounge outtakes....

> I rather die than cheat my favorite group!

Somehow - I dont believe you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 01:52 by Gazza.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scott, No offense...but this was illlustrated in
> a documentary aired by VH1 before the Voodoo
> Lounge Tour....
>
> If you want to recant Keith's words as "Keithism"
> then yours are just the same.
>
>


What he said doesnt make it proven. Bill Wyman and Marshall Chess said that his claim that Muddy Waters was painting the ceiling at Chess Studios was absolute nonsense.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Headly 123
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> Where is the evidence of the Stones buying their
> own music? Please share this this information if
> not false or incriminating.

Is a widely circulated audio tape of Mick Jagger buying Stones bootlegs (one of which was the 1971 London Roundhouse gig if I remember right) in a New York record store in 1975 good enough?



> Secondly, I never stated as a spokesperson for the
> Stones. If you were a member of the Stones, would
> you like someone else confiscating your efforts?


The 'theft' isnt by the people buying bootlegs. Its by the people who steal them from the studio (or crew members who make a tape off a soundboard) and then have them factory pressed for profit. Take your problems up with them. You cant blame fans who already own their official releases (in some cases many times over) for wanting to hear more music and for spending money to do so. There's no 'theft' involved in taping live performances and sharing them either.

Personally, I dont buy bootlegs - solely for financial reasons - or sell them. I've traded them for years however, and that is NOT illegal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 01:51 by Gazza.

>> I meant that it's their own choice whether to release a "well-known" SBD recording or a "rare" concert from their vaults.
If they choose to do the first mentioned; they ought to realise that some collectors might pass on this official release. <<

yeah ... but in terms of current shows, that kind of "collector" would say "but i already have it"
to virtually everything. and the band - any band - might well wonder what the point is
in investing time & money into mixing, packaging, promoting & distributing more material
for fans who are so adept at getting ahold of stuff on our own - and then bitching about it -
especially when anything they release officially will also be subjected to widespread piracy
in addition to the pre-release bootlegging. sigh! what i mean is that it might be easier
to get official releases that haven't circulated as bootlegs if we left a little more unbootlegged.

i know you're mainly talking about older, uncirculated stuff, Erik - stuff that i'd love to hear too -
but sometimes when i look at what they've already poured out for us ...
and the way some people bitch about everything they do or don't do ...
and still we want them to dig up more ... man, we really are insatiable

good night ~ sleep tight :E

I don't understand the motivation for this thread. The morality of taping and sharing is debatable, in the sense that reasonable people could come to different conclusions about it--as, I suppose, they could about bootlegging, though only capitalist pirates would support it, at least in an age where free sharing is possible--but why do the stone$ need such ardent defenders?

The only objections to sharing unofficial recordings are abstract in the case of a group that's made absurd piles of cash. Which generation of jaggers are you concerned for? The abstractions make for an interesting debate, but it seems academic, especially when the stones themselves are so deeply cynical and always have been (not a criticism). Actual struggling musicians--I mean even anyone musician who needs the income, even if they're successful--are different cases. And a lot of them don't mind taping sharing, oddly enough...

Chris F, what's your agenda?

>> Actual struggling musicians--I mean even anyone musician who needs the income,
even if they're successful--are different cases. <<

cc, what concerns me most is that how people seem to be getting very used to not paying musicians for recorded music.
i like recorded music - i think it's a brilliant invention, and i'd love it if gifted artists could earn a living making it.
your argument that the Stones' prosperity is so great that it's cool not to pay them for their recordings
is (to me) dubious in a few ways - but since it's way past my bedtime, how about just this for now:
"the fortunes of the entire entertainment industry have always fluctuated with the fortunes of the biggest stars."
that's quoted from memory from a fascinating little book called Black & White Blues,
and i find it a really interesting statement.

a situation in which record sales are nosediving - including those of the biggest names in the business -
is not conducive to record companies investing in the struggling artists you're concerned about.
you and i have discussed this in other threads before: record companies have traditionally treated artists
as badly as they can get away with treating them, so it's not them i'm worried about either -
but where *are* struggling artists supposed to get the backing they need to create, record, promote & distribute their music
when not only the record companies but also the fans have gotten so accustomed to not paying recording artists?

and then we wonder where all the great music has gone, and why crappy commercial products are all over the airwaves instead.

oh and: Gazza, if you're saying audience recordings of shows are legal, i'm real sure that's not correct
unless the performers give explicit permission. it's not the most enforceable law, obviously - but still.

good night for real this time :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-05 03:03 by with sssoul.

Its a grey area. For example, I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for being caught taping a show, have you?

Its certainly not illegal to own audience recordings,to download them or trade them - nor is it illegal to my knowledge to BUY bootlegs. The lawbreaking is in the theft of the material from the source, and in selling it - plus the infringement of copyright laws which occurs due to piracy.

I know for a fact that the Stones' legal people keep an eye on what is uploaded on Bit torrent trackers. It speaks volumes that they've never taken any action to prevent it. However, uploading copyrighted released material would be a different matter entirely.

Stikkyfinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recently read somewhere that bands like the
> Stereophonics (I think it was them anyway) are
> releasing their new album over the net for free,
> and relying on the downloaders to pay them
> whatever they feel it is worth.
>
> I have no idea how successful that idea was, but
> it's an interesting concept.
>

It was Radiohead. I think the average 'donation' to date has been around £7.00. As they're pretty massive over here I would imagine it'll still be quite successful.

When you consider that a new album costs anything from about £10 to the retail price of about £15 and the artist gets a relatively small proportion of that, Radiohead's share of the £7.00 average price will maybe be higher than it would be from record shop sales, with a reduction on overheads.

Ok...I'll agree with you if.....

The Stones reimburse me for all the shoddy technology I have been sold with a short shelf life: 8 tracks, tapes, cds etc....

I have had to re-buy everything.....

so stop with this nonsense